Category Archives: Paradoxes in Everyday Life

Understanding Political Polarization

September 12, 2020Paradoxes in Everyday Life, Personal Conflict, Political Applications, Subjectivity and Objectivitybeliefs and values, certainty, conflicting values, paradox, polarization, political, sense of security, true believerRobert Daniel

Political polarization has been on the rise over the past few decades. This division has only intensified during Trump’s presidency. In today’s climate, the discussion of our political differences appears nearly impossible. This post will explore how the interplay of beliefs and values shapes our political positions. We will see how our quest for certainty can result in adopting polarized positions. Yet normal conflicts between values undermine our confidence in taking such absolute stances on issues. “True believers” resolve this dilemma by compartmentalizing their conflicting values. Additionally, they seek refuge externally, embracing dogma, cult, and authoritarian leader for their longed-for reassurance. This post will expand upon this rather compact summary for a more complete understanding of polarization.

Our Quest for Meaning and Security

First, our political principles do not exist in a vacuum. Rather, they are part of an overall outlook on life that also encompasses culture, society, spirituality, recreation, and occupation. Our various beliefs, attitudes, opinions, and values generally hang together in at least a somewhat coherent fashion. This system helps us make sense of the world around us, anticipate relevant events, and plan accordingly. We rely on it not only to find meaning and purpose, but also to achieve a sense of security.

Beliefs and Values

Here, it is helpful to distinguish between beliefs and values. Our beliefs concern how we see things being, whereas our values are about how we see things should be. Our political positions concern the discrepancy between what is and what should or could be. If the current situation is consistent with our values, we support the status quo. This conservative stance by no means implies complacency – we can be quite vigilant in preserving the current order. And when the present doesn’t measure up to our ideals, we promote change. This can be progressive, in trying something new, or regressive, in going back to the old ways. Through this process, our systems of values and beliefs shape our various political opinions, attitudes, and policies.

Diversity Breeds Insecurity

With the diversity of beliefs and values, how can we be confident in our own? And with severe polarization, we disagree sharply in both our values and our beliefs. This makes for considerable conflict and confusion, thus threatening our sense of security. In the face of this situation, we long for certainty.

Logic and Our Search for Clear-cut Answers

Threats to our security are not just external – they can be internal, as well. Our outlook on life bolsters our sense of security by providing a consistent, straightforward guide for making choices. We generally like clear-cut, logical answers – true or false, right or wrong, good or bad. Logical analysis is custom-designed to deliver the goods, in either-or terms. And when we can all agree on the basic assumptions in a logical argument, we can usually agree on the conclusions. Such are the ingredients of an orderly, productive society.

The Initial Assumptions – Therein Lies the Rub

The main challenge to our societal ideals lies outside the realm of logic – actually, prior to it. Logic does not create something out of nothing. In order to use deductive reasoning, we require some initial statements to apply it to. These premises are basic beliefs which we presume to be true. With no logical proof of their validity, we believe them because they make sense to us and others whose opinions we respect. With polarization, we often disagree on the basic premises underpinning our arguments on a particular policy. Usually these assumptions go unstated, resulting in a stalemate in discussions.

Agreeing on the Facts

Another problem is agreeing on the facts. We’d all like to think that we share the same knowledge base in debating our positions on issues. After all, facts are facts, right? Yet political developments highlight this challenge. For example, Kelly Ann Conway proposed “alternative facts” in justifying the claim that President Trump had record attendance at his inauguration. While hardly an expert in epistemology (i.e., the philosophical study of how we know things), she backed this position by questioning how we can know anything with certainty. More recently, the distinction between anecdotal and scientific knowledge has emerged in the battle against COVID-19. All this highlights the need for consensus regarding “rules of evidence” for determining fact. (I plan to take this up in an upcoming post, with the working title of “Knowledge: Anecdote, Analogy, and Logic”.)

How Logic Speaks to Values – Or Not

Values present an even more daunting challenge to a sense of security that rests on a foundation of certainty. In the world of philosophy, the logical empiricists are rather dismissive of values, or ideals. Purists consider them to be non-sensory phenomena (or nonsense, for short?), and thus unworthy of logical inquiry. (Scott Adams has delivered a rather pithy commentary of their bias in Dilbert.) By embracing the value of objectivity, they appear quite willing to relegate the topic of values to the more subjective ethicists. The resulting separate study of beliefs and values complicates our efforts to understand their interplay in creating polarized political positions. Still, we must proceed.

Values in Conflict – Incidental and Paradoxical

All this goes to say that values do not lend themselves well to logical analysis. While deductive reasoning offers “either-or” conclusions in establishing facts, “both-and” resolutions appear more appropriate to values. This situation is particularly relevant when values are in conflict – as they frequently are. These conflicts may be incidental, arising randomly in specific situations. Yet, quite often certain values are inherently opposed to one another. These include order vs. spontaneity, individual freedom vs. the common good, adventure/risk vs. security, living for today vs. planning for tomorrow, and being-for-self vs. being-for-others. Such polarities in values serve as the basis for much polarization. You can probably recognize how various political controversies involve one or more of these dualities.

The Issue of Paradox

If logic doesn’t solve the problem of conflicting values, where do we turn? Another option is to view our conflicts between values not as problems to be solved, but as paradoxes to be accepted. Here, I might quote from my doctoral dissertation over years ago:

Despite (and perhaps because of) our scientific inventions and discoveries, humans confront paradoxes without adaptive solutions. We are capable of projecting ourselves into the past or future, yet remain tethered to the present. We contemplate the infinite, yet cannot escape our own mortality. We are determined by our histories, yet choose our future. We are our bodies, yet we have bodies. These are all features of the human condition for which science provides no solutions. . . . It is here, where science falls short, that art speaks and perhaps comforts.
Robert Daniel, Ph.D., 1986

An Example of a Paradoxical Duality of Values

A common saying offers some insight into the dilemma posed by one such paradoxical duality: “You can’t have your cake and eat it, too.” This simple statement embodies the tension between enjoying life in the moment and planning for the future. There is one significant flaw with this assertion, in that it considers only a binary choice, with either-or options. It overlooks a middle ground: “You can halve your cake, eat one half now, save the rest for later.” While flawed, the original saying conveys the opposite extremes that characterize polarization. Furthermore, the altered version suggests a “both-and” resolution involving a trade-off between the two ideals.

Political Implications of This Paradox

In politics, this issue plays out in the decision to get immediate relief from deferring payroll taxes or to continue full funding of Social Security for our futures. It also applies to the threat that the extraction of natural resources poses to future pollution of our environment. Our next generation will judge us by how we leave the earth, their inheritance. To listen to Greta Thunberg, we’ve already been indicted (and rightly so, I might add).

Links to Other Examples

There are many other examples of paradoxes in values that defy logical solution, as I have pointed out in Living Rationally with Paradox: Staying Sane in a Crazy World, or Trying to Force a Round Peg into a Square Hole? Since humor draws on paradox, it is not surprising to find excellent examples in the comic strips. Bill Waterston is a master at exposing these existential dilemmas, as he has done in Calvin and Hobbes. I am again providing links to his commentary on the polarities of Individuality vs. Belonging, Order vs. Freedom, Adventure vs. Security, and Living in the Present vs. Planning for the Future. These present examples of basic conflicts between values that defy logical solution, which have political implications.

Polarization: The Politics of Extremes

Yet another example of polarization comes straight from the political sphere. Here, former presidential candidate Barry Goldwater famously stated: “Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.” Ultimate liberty means having no limits, and thus no rules or order. Without restraints, those in power are free to do as they please. As Lord Acton noted in the 19^th Century, “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Thus, the powerful get their way, creating injustice for others. Goldwater was able to compartmentalize freedom and justice so as not to recognize this inherent conflict. And many other politicians are doing the same with the various paradoxical dilemmas that underlay our political polarization.

Paradox: Where Logic Falls Short

As I suggested through my two examples, polarization arises out of our tendency to view dualities in either-or terms. Deductive logic emphasizes such binary solutions to our problems. This, along with the inductive reasoning of the scientific method, has promoted major technological advances. Yet logic falls short when it comes to paradox, which by definition defies logical solution. We cannot totally have it our way for both savoring the moment and building a nest egg for tomorrow. Nor can we have absolute freedom and total justice in our society. Of course, this also challenges Madison Avenue’s sales pitch that “you can have it all.” So, where does that leave us?

Paradox: A Challenge to Certainty

Our alternative resolution to paradoxes is acceptance. This involves recognizing that we cannot totally attain both ends of polar dualities. Rather than the polarized choice between the two extremes, we can resign ourselves to a trade-off between the two. We can opt for some of both, but not all of either. But just where do we draw the line? Well, this is where ambiguity sets in. As much as we might want definitive answers, these choices are generally a matter of personal preference. (More on this later.) While that might relieve us of the burden of proving ourselves right, it leaves us on shaky ground with our sense of security. No straightforward, clear-cut answers here – only a debate on the relative merits of a proposed policy.

Finding Balance between the Paradoxical Values

I have proposed one basic guideline in my previous post, Muddling down a Middle Path: Wading through the Messiness of Life. Actually, the title aptly summarizes my message, which draws on the Buddhist principle of the Middle Path. The general rule of thumb is that the middle ground works out better than polarized extremes of the spectrum. Simple, no? Well, there is one slight complication: there can be a wide range of healthy, adaptive positions in the middle. This leaves plenty of room for honest differences of opinion.

Balancing Logic and Paradox

Earlier, I expressed regret for how the separate studies of logic and ethics complicate our understanding of political opinions. Instead, I suggest that logical determination of facts and tolerance for conflicting values ideally complement one other to achieve informed political opinions. This integration utilizes both objective and subjective perspectives for a deeper appreciation of our political differences. In doing so, this model views science and the humanities as complementary, rather than opposing forces.

In Praise of Ambiguity and Uncertainty

Political dialogue based upon the above principles support greater tolerance for our differences and less judgmentalism of one other. Thus, we can have honest disagreements without each declaring ourselves right and others wrong. We can broaden our perspective by considering ideas and values other than our own. We can stand in awe of this complex and diverse world, especially since we can’t entirely comprehend it in logical terms. So, why not embrace life’s ambiguities? Indeed, Alan Watts recommends this in The Wisdom of Insecurity, a spiritual book that transcends particular religious traditions. So, what’s not to love?

The Threat to our Sense of Security

There’s just one catch, though. Remember how we addressed our desire for certainty to insure our sense of security, especially in contentious times? Well, conflicting values challenge our having straightforward, clear-cut answers. Do you recall that game of Jenga, involving removal of building blocks from a tower? We can remove only so many select blocks before the structure topples. Well, that illustrates the fears that some have about giving up their right vs. wrong, black-and-white thinking. It is indeed ironic that seeking this internal certainty fosters the polarization that is so divisive to society. While we may seek certainty to reassure our sense of security, the resulting polarization ultimately threatens our actual security.

The True Believer

Seeking certainty for a sense of identity and security is by no means a new concept. In The True Believer: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements (1951), Eric Hoffer coined the term, “true believer.” Since his profile of this phenomenon remains valid, I will borrow his term in discussing seekers of certainty.

The Illusion of Absolute Certainty

This illusion of certainty and security is not achieved without some serious mental gymnastics. True believers commonly deny, rationalize, distort, and suppress evidence contrary to their polarized positions. Yet their really problematic challenge is more internal – that of conflicts among the very values they endorse. I have proposed that we optimally have a balanced trade-off between opposing values. These include law-and-order vs. freedom, individualism vs. the common good, and adventure vs. security. Many true believers view most all these values positively. They even treat them as dogma – absolute ideals, written in stone, never to be violated. Maintaining this illusion, though, requires not seeing them in conflict with one another. Goldwater, for example, was apparently able to achieve this with regard to liberty and justice. Such is the defense mechanism of compartmentalization.

"Nothing is written in stone" challenges the notion of absolute truth. — The engraving of this saying in stone offers an ironic challenge to the notion of Absolute Truth.

Compartmentalization

Compartmentalization involves erecting internal firewalls between contradictory positions which we hold. We consider each of the opposing sides one at a time, so that we don’t recognize the contradictions. When we delve more deeply into our policies promoting one ideal, we encounter how it limits its complement. For instance, we might promote freedom by allowing business owners to select their customers by whatever standard they choose. When they do so on grounds of race, religion, or gender, this discrimination infringes on justice for these groups. With compartmentalization, each value is addressed independently, allowing sequential coexistence of opposing polarized positions. This defense worked so well for Barry Goldwater, that he didn’t recognize the contradiction within two consecutive sentences.

A Sea of Uncertainty

So far, I have argued that limitations of logic, relativity of conflicting values, and ambiguity of paradoxes all challenge certainty in our convictions. Earlier, I had noted how our choices among various competing values boil down to personal preference. With so many viable options, our decisions can feel rather arbitrary. This only further diminishes our sense of certainty. If we base our security on such certainty, we won’t feel particularly safe. Then, we are likely to look outside ourselves, to rely on external sources for clear-cut answers.

Finding External Sources of Certainty

External sources of doctrine, group, and leader may promise straightforward answers to contentious political issues. These areas correspond to three moral values proposed by psychologist Jonathan Haidt, in his Moral Foundations Theory. Here, he supplemented the usual standards of fairness and harm avoidance with sanctity, group loyalty, and allegiance to authority. Each of these three additions can reassure true believers of certainty in their polarized convictions.

Sanctity Backed by Religious Doctrine

Sanctity involves an ethical code emphasizing purity of thought and action, usually based on religious doctrine. Typically, the dogma affirms the absolute truth of its tenets. These are seen as trumping other values that may conflict with them. The Catholic Church’s claim of papal infallibility is but one example. With such dogma superceding other viewpoints, true believers can rest assured that their values and beliefs are absolute truths.

Loyalty to Group

Loyalty to the group is another external support that enables the illusion of certainty. True believers can achieve a sense of personal identity from being a member of a larger group. The pressure for group conformity, though, discourages the other principle component of individual identity – one’s uniqueness. This is consistent with Hoffer’s notion that mass movements actually discourage self-affirmation. Any sense of uniqueness is shared with the whole group and is in opposition to other groups. This establishes an “us vs. them” mentality, which lies at the heart of polarization. While this solidifies the true believers’ sense of meaning and purpose, it envisions a more hostile world. This ominous perspective likely leads them to hunker down in their polarized beliefs and values. It also leaves them even more dependent upon their external support system.

Allegiance to the Leader

Finally, true believers gravitate toward charismatic leaders who lay claim to having all the answers. They thus obtain their sense of value vicariously, through identifying with their leader. When the Wizard says to pay no attention to the little man behind the curtain, they oblige. No questions asked.

Dogma, Cult, and Authoritarian Leader

The values of sanctity, group loyalty, and allegiance to the leader present a formidable force for polarization. In their extreme versions, they promote rigid dogma, cults, and authoritarian leaders. This combination leaves the true believer almost impervious to influence from sources outside this triad. Logical reasoning seldom penetrates their political polarization – they simply are too well defended. Yet the authoritarian leaders and the proponents of the “us vs. them” dogma are even more resistant to change. They are simply unwilling to give up their power. This leaves the true believer as the weak link in the movement. My upcoming post, Bridging the Great Political Divide, will address the difficult challenge of engaging the true believer.

The Broader Perspective on Polarization

Prior to this last section, we have addressed political polarization primarily on the individual level, in basically psychological terms. It is when we step back and examine it on the larger political scale that we realize the potential for real danger. Then, we see political cults that poses challenges to our democracy. Factions at both poles of the political spectrum get locked into dysfunctional vicious cycle patterns. As I addressed in Vicious Cycle Roles on the Societal and Political Level, a common political pattern involves law-and-order conservatives and bleeding heart liberals clashing on how to handle major groups. Where the former see threats to our way of life, the latter see society’s victims. In a polarized society, there is little room for a nuanced perspective on the group in question. As the saying goes, “You’re either for us or against us.”

Where We Stand Today

We appear to be in one such vortex today, in the shadow of George Floyd’s tragic death. We could characterize the 2020 presidential race as a classic battle between law-and-order and bleeding hearts. That, however, would be a gross simplification – and wrong. On the one hand, Donald Trump’s position is polarized and dogmatic. He panders to his base by promising to quell and “dominate” the unrest and violence. If he has made any distinction between peaceful protesters and anarchists, it was only a passing footnote. He has excused bad cops for their “choking” under pressure and characterized right-wing vigilante militias as patriots. On the other hand, Joe Biden has highlighted the distinction between peaceful protesters and vandals, looters, and rioters. He seeks reform of our imperfect institutions, not their dismantlement. He seeks unification and healing, while Trump pursues division and dominance.

A Statement of Disclosure

I admit that I am not providing “fair and balanced” coverage in focusing on the polarized right. In my defense, I do so because that is where the power is. And as Lord Acton noted, corruption soon follows. Whether that be voter suppression, violations of the Hatch Act, seeking foreign assistance in elections, or other abuses, recent history bears that out. Such violations are not currently so apparent or menacing on the polarized left. Yes, there has been destruction and violence by a left-wing fringe, which warrants punishment. I fear that any harm to life and property, bad as it is, will be overshadowed by the law-and-order measures taken to suppress dissent. I like to think that I would challenge the political left similarly for any abuses comparable to the polarized right’s. When the pendulum of power swings in its direction, I could well be tested.

Behind the Scenes – Conspiracy?

I have my doubts whether the corporate/governmental complex, backed by their Super PACs, special interest lobbyists, and biased think tanks, will give up power willingly. They are just too invested in their pursuit of power, property, prestige, and privilege. Yes, this offers an alternative to the Deep State conspiracy in describing the behind-the-scene power structure. Still, I’d assert that it offers vastly better documentation than QAnon, Alex Jones, Fox Media, Breitbart, and OAN. But don’t take my word for it. Check out Common Cause, Public Citizen, and other lobbying groups serving the public, rather than special interests.

Where to from Here?

Hopefully, I have offered some clarity on the issue of political polarization. The 2020 ballot box has affirmed democracy over polarized dogma, autocratic leadership, and true-believer cult followers. Still, the gains are not written in stone. To paraphrase and extend a famous saying of uncertain origins, “The price of freedom [and justice, for that matter] is eternal vigilance.” There still needs to be major reckoning and healing before we can restore collaborative governance. We may not be able to reach die-hard true believers of the polar extremes, but we might try a fresh approach. Watch for my upcoming post, Bridging the Great Political Divide, where I will introduce “verbal judo.” If nothing else, perhaps we can reach enough independents to attain the critical mass needed for true reform. Stay tuned, keep an open mind, breathe deeply, and hang on for the roller coaster ride of a lifetime.

Narcissists’ Self-Promotions Trump Cooperation

February 21, 2016Interpersonal Roles, Paradoxes in Everyday Life, Political Applications, Vicious Cycle Patterns in Relationshipsbelonging, individuality, narcissist, paradox, self-esteem, self-worth, trumpRobert Daniel

The issue of narcissism has been in the news a lot lately, though not necessarily identified as such. Its current prominence in the Republican primary race has turned “politics as usual” on its head. Narcissism has become the “elephant in the room” which candidates have been reluctant to acknowledge, largely out of fear of being trumpled [sic]. Politicos have been scrambling about trying to figure out how to deal with it, as it has become a HUGE problem for them.

In order to deal effectively with the problem, we must first understand what it is and how it operates. Reacting instinctively or by knee-jerk reflex often only feeds into the problem. For this reason, it is important to recognize the social context of this issue and how we can unwittingly get drawn into its force field. Only by recognizing our vulnerabilities can we avoid this trap. This is where the application of my vicious cycle model can offer some valuable insight.

Narcissists and Self-Esteem

Perhaps the hallmark of the Narcissist is the excessive need for approval and admiration. The status seeking only demonstrates how much the self-esteem of the Narcissist requires the continuing affirmation of others to remain intact. For the Narcissist, self-esteem is conditional in nature, which means that it is based on the person having particular valued qualities upon which the self-esteem rests. This value is typically determined relative to other people, such that the Narcissist needs to be better than others, whether that be wealthier, smarter, stronger, more confident, more stylish, more elegant, more discerning, more attractive, etc. Conditional self-worth requires continuing reinforcement, with the Narcissist being like the salesman who is “only as good as his last sale.” The standards for excellence tend to be rather exorbitant, such that Narcissists never feel they are quite good enough. Second place just won’t cut it. In her classic book, The Drama of the Gifted Child, Alice Miller addressed the roots of this condition in childhood, wherein children have learned that they must be perfect to earn the approval of their parents or other caretakers, with this legacy continuing on into adulthood (hence, the alternate title, Prisoners of Childhood).

Even with the adulation of others, Narcissists often feel like imposters, not actually deserving of the affirmation they receive, although they would never admit this. Thus, they fear being exposed and have difficulty acknowledging any shortcomings that might tarnish their self-image. That famous line from The Wizard of Oz, “Pay no attention to the little man behind the curtain,” applies to them. Any exposure of that “little man” may foster defensiveness, denial and retribution.

The Narcissist’s excessive reliance on conditional self-esteem is likely due to poverty in intrinsic self-esteem – our core conviction in our basic self-worth, just the way we are. This acceptance usually applies equally well to others as to oneself, with the folksy saying, “God don’t make no junk,” expressing this outlook in rather down-to-earth terms. The value that “all men [and women] are created equal” expressed in our Declaration of Independence refers to our intrinsic self-worth, in contrast to the “better than” criterion upon which conditional self-esteem rests. The irony of the Narcissists is that while their expressed self-confidence suggests a rock solid foundation, their self-esteem rests on the loose sands of conditional self-worth.

Narcissism and the Paradox of Individuality and Belonging

The distinction between conditional and intrinsic self-esteem has profound implications for how we resolve the paradox of individuality and belonging, which I have addressed in Muddling down the Middle Path: Wading through the Messiness of Life, and for which I have referred to Calvin and Hobbes for dramatization of the “flake vs. drip” dilemma. Those relying upon conditional self-esteem usually emphasize individuality, claiming credit for being self-made men and women, perhaps giving only lip service to others in acknowledging their contributions to the Narcissists’ successes. Narcissists can easily adopt the mantra, “I did it my way” from Paul Anka’s song popularized by Frank Sinatra, with a footnote that regrets have been “too few to mention.” William Ernest Henley’s poem, “Invictus” provides another apt motto: “I am the master of my fate: I am the captain of my soul.”

In contrast to the Narcissist’s emphasis on individuality, those with a healthy dose of intrinsic self-worth gravitate more toward the middle of the individuality—belonging spectrum. This stance recognizes that one’s achievements have not occurred in a vacuum, but rest upon the previous and current contributions of others. With identity so interwoven with the fabric of the environment, the idea of a distinct individual identity might be considered an illusion (as suggested by the Buddhist concept of “interbeing” developed by Thich Nhat Hanh). Such a perspective should not be taken as favoring belonging over individuality, as those with intrinsic self-worth are usually quite willing and able to express their individuality by declaring their own positions on issues of consequence when in conflict with others.

Narcissism and Relating to Others

The Narcissists’ emphasis on conditional self-esteem leads them to relate to others competitively, as their self-esteem hinges on their perceived superiority to others. This often escalates to an “us versus them” mentality, with this conflict providing the drama with which to draw further attention to the Narcissists. When they form alliances, these tend to be transient. Narcissists are not to be trusted, as they will break these alliances when no longer self-serving, either going their own way or forming new alliances. For the Narcissists, competition invariably trumps cooperation, even when it may not appear so on the surface.

In contrast to the Narcissists, those embodying intrinsic self-esteem typically extend the same respect to others that they have for themselves. Since they are comfortable with themselves as they are, they do not feel threatened by others who demonstrate qualities comparable or even superior to their own. Since they are comfortable with their own outlooks on life, they do not feel threatened by positions other than their own – in fact, they usually welcome diversity with the understanding that it broadens their horizons and enriches their understanding of themselves and the world around them. Thus, their sense of belonging, even with others different from themselves, allows them to relate to others cooperatively. Still, their confidence in their values and convictions allows them to disagree with others, respecting them as worthy adversaries, not inferior people.

The Vicious Cycle Patterns Involving Narcissists

Narcissism does not operate in a vacuum, but depends upon a social context for its existence and expression. There are relatively stable interaction patterns which serve to maintain its expression, even though the results are frequently rather dysfunctional for all involved. These qualities fit the pattern of vicious cycles, which I have explored in depth in my page, Vicious Cycle Patterns in Relationships 2.0. Of particular relevance is the Critic – Victim/Rebel – Rescuer cycle, derived from Steven Karpman’s Drama Triangle, described in Games Alcoholics Play, by Claude Steiner. At different times the Narcissist may play out the roles of the Critic and the Rescuer, while at other times the Narcissist role is a variant of the Victim/Rebel role. In this latter scenario, the supporting cast includes an Entourage of Admirers (a variant of the Rescuer role), as well as Critics.

The Narcissist Role in Relation to Its Adversaries

Since the Narcissist role is oriented toward enhancing conditional self-worth, it requires either a quest to surmount or others to best: in competition, there can’t be winners without losers, and for the winner, the more losers the better. Competitors may find themselves the Victims of Narcissists when they are seeking the same objective for which there can be only one winner. And whether the challenge is a project or a contest, Narcissists need someone to hold responsible for the inevitable setbacks, mistakes, and failures. Here, the Narcissists shift into the Critic mode to blame their designated scapegoats: the buck stops there. The scapegoats fit into the Victim role when they are subordinates or the disenfranchised who lack the authority or skills to challenge the blame assigned to them, and thus pose little threat to the Narcissists. Other frequent targets of the Narcissists are their detractors, who generally fall into the Critic role. Narcissists often seek to neutralize the negative feedback through a counterattack aimed at discrediting their Critics. They may use various logical fallacies and emotionally-charged distortions to keep these adversaries off balance. With their penchant for the competitive mode of interaction, they are often quite practiced and skillful at these verbal skills, such that they hold a distinct advantage over those whose nature is more collaborative.

The Narcissist Role in Relation to Its Supporters

Narcissists are also rather practiced in playing to their supporters, who represent a variation of the Rescuer role described in the earlier webpage on vicious cycles. With their intense need for affirmation, Narcissists require a whole Entourage of allies, sidekicks, posses, and loyal fans who profess unconditional loyalty to their leaders. Narcissists may acquire trophy wives or boy toys who enhance their status while accepting their own subordinate positions. Their fans not only accept the Narcissists’ projection of blame onto others for their own shortcomings, but often admire the panache with which this feat is accomplished. In return, Narcissists provide their fans with an opportunity to live vicariously through their successes and conquests.

Predisposing Vulnerabilities for Vicious Cycle Interactions

There are certain qualities and shortcomings that predispose individuals toward assuming vicious cycle roles with Narcissists, whether or not they seek out this interaction. Those lacking in both intrinsic and conditional self-esteem are susceptible to the gravitational pulls of either the Critic role or the Admirer role in the Narcissists’ Entourage. Narcissists have a knack for pulling vulnerable individuals into their orbit, whether that be in opposition or in affirmation. Imbalances along the Individuality – Belonging continuum also increases susceptibility to the roles complementary to the Narcissist. Critics tend to occupy positions toward the individuality pole, whereas the Entourage of Admirers is generally situated toward the belonging pole.

The Pull of the Critic Role

The Critic role compensates for a lack of intrinsic self-worth by fostering conditional self-worth, as their pointing out the negative qualities of others allows them to feel superior by comparison. Like the Narcissist, the Critic role emphasizes individuality and self-righteous superiority in passing judgment on others different from oneself. Yet because Critics often lacks the Narcissists’ conditional self-worth (or at least not to the same grandiose level), they are often reluctant to express their own individuality by advocating for their own causes or positions – such actions would risk the censure of others, thus jeopardizing their tenuous sense of self-worth. Individuals who value order and predictability for their sense of security and well-being often gravitate toward the Critic role in relation to Narcissists, who tend to play by their own set of rules. Constrained by their own sense of propriety, Critics may harbor resentment or even envy for the Narcissists’ blatant disregard for basic civility (which is sometimes disparaged as political correctness). These negative feelings only serve to intensify the force field drawing them into adversarial engagement.

The Pull of the Entourage Roles

Individuals lacking in both intrinsic and conditional self-worth may find themselves drawn into orbit around the Narcissist in a supportive rather than a critical manner. The various roles within the Narcissists’ Entourage (e.g., sidekicks, posses, and the fans) compensate for their deficits in intrinsic self-worth, though in a manner quite different from the Critic role: individuals derive a vicarious identity and sense of self-worth through their association with their idol. These individuals tend toward the belonging end of the individuality – belonging continuum: they prefer to fit in rather than stand out, which lends itself to conformity. Like many Critics, they are reluctant to express their own individuality and risk censure. When they do express criticism, it usually involves parroting the Narcissists’ complaints about their Critics. These features predispose these individuals to be attracted to dynamic personalities who express out loud but they harbor in silence. They function like planets captured in orbit by the gravitational pull of the sun, with their visibility provided only by their reflecting the light emanating from the sun. This Entourage of Admirers is highly protective and supportive of their sun god, particularly since their own sense of self-worth is inextricably tied to the reputation of the Narcissist around whom they circle. Expressing their misgivings or reservations about their idol can be rather risky, as it could provoke the idol to eject them from their orbit, although it is rather doubtful that the Narcissist would even notice them.

Resisting the Force Field of Narcissists

Now that we have some understanding of the dynamic processes involved in narcissism, particularly in the social context of vicious cycle patterns, we can now work at putting this insight into practice. Through our exploration of the vicious cycle patterns, we come to the realization that all parties involved lose out where it really counts – in terms of their own personal well-being. This includes the Narcissists, who must constantly feed their insatiable conditional self-worth with the adulation of their followers and buffer it from the scathing reviews of their critics. When we come to realize that ultimately everyone loses in such interactions, we are less likely to lose our perspective and get pulled into the fray. To paraphrase a proverb from the Tao Te Ching, those who understand how the system works can have compassion for each participant in it. Such compassion can serve as an antidote to the anger, envy, resentment, and hurt which fuels the melodramatic force field surrounding Narcissists.

Another aspect to address is that deficits in self-esteem increase the susceptibility to being drawn into the vicious cycle patterns, regardless of the particular roles to which we gravitate. As addressed throughout this article, intrinsic self-esteem is the more important one to address. This quality runs much deeper than verbal attitudes, such that affirmations will only take us so far. Counseling and psychotherapy can be of significant benefit. My article, “How Can I Like Myself Better?”: An Inquiry into Self-Esteem, explores this topic in more detail and provides more suggestions for this work.

Escaping the Particular Dysfunctional Roles

When members of the Entourage discover the “little man behind the curtain” projecting the larger-than-life image of their hero, they can begin to recognize the humanity of their idols, the shortcomings as well as the strengths. They can then reclaim for themselves the power that they had signed over to their heroes. This challenges them to define their own positions rather than swallow “hook, line, and sinker” the messages of their leaders. Then they face the challenge of taking a standing for their own convictions, which brings with it the risk of being shot down by others who favor the Critic role.

Those cast in the Victim role by Narcissists often face strong messages assaulting their self-worth, both conditional and intrinsic. By recognizing how projecting such badness or inadequacy onto others is used to shield the Narcissists’ vulnerable ego, the targets of these attacks can gain some consolation by considering the source. When victims understand that those caustic remarks say much more about the shaky foundation of the Narcissists’ self-worth than they say about their intended targets, they can come to realize that they do not need to take those messages so personally. This frees up their attention for other important matters, such as the self-empowerment that comes from defining their own qualities and values and finding their own voices in expressing them.

Individuals who find themselves in competition with Narcissists often experience strong pulls drawing them into the Victim and Critic roles. With Narcissists’ heavy reliance on conditional self-esteem for their self-worth, competition creates an intense force field around them that attracts or repels even individuals who are not normally predisposed to the Critic, Victim, or Entourage roles. Of course, such pulls could be avoided by electing not to compete with Narcissists. Yet when the competition taps into one’s strong convictions, throwing in the cards is tantamount to letting the Narcissist win by default. Staying in the game requires both interpersonal skills and strategies to outmaneuver the Narcissist and internal skills for managing the intense feelings that the Narcissist is so adept at evoking. One particular challenge is to stand one’s ground while not demonizing are or disparaging the Narcissists personally, as this invites them to play the victim card. Calling out their behavior generally works better than assailing their character. The competition can be particularly challenging for individuals who are more accustomed to cooperative or collaborative interactions, in which case the Narcissist had home court advantage. A healthy dose of intrinsic self-esteem can go a long way toward neutralizing the charged accusations which the Narcissist is prone to lob at adversaries.

When Narcissists come to recognize the tyrannical demands of their conditional self-esteem and its detrimental impact on their relationships, they can begin the work of liberating themselves from this bondage. Unfortunately, such insight usually hits home only after major blows to the ego when their houses of cards collapse. They tend to be fixated on conquest and are likely to view a more collaborative style as a sign of weakness. For that reason, they are likely to be rather critical of the concept of intrinsic self-esteem. In their driven quest for ultimate success, they are prone to self-destruction, like Icarus, who came crashing down to earth after flying too close to the sun. Only then might they question their lifestyles and consider other ways of being. This is likely to be an uphill battle, as their sense of humiliation is likely to trump the humility required for cultivating healthy intrinsic self-worth. Redemption is possible, though, and would likely also require a shift to the center on the continuum of individuality versus belonging.

Know Thyself

Perhaps the most important lesson from this exploration is what we might learn about ourselves, which poses a greater challenge than what we might learn about others. Here we can refer to the biblical passage in which Jesus states that seeing the mote or splinter in another’s eye comes much easier than recognizing the beam in our own. In taking our own inventory of how we might enact these various vicious cycle roles, we can seek candid feedback from our trusted friends. We might also realize that those qualities that we despise in others are often ones we possess, yet deny, in ourselves. When we recognize this, we might even experience gratitude for the lessons our adversaries can teach us, but this requires humility. In the service of this self-exploration, we can work at cultivating our intrinsic self-worth by accepting ourselves for where we’re currently at, with humility being helpful on this front, as well. At the same time, we can work at extending this acceptance to others as they are.

Note that these practices in acceptance of self and others do not imply complacency or prevent our work at achieving personal growth. Another proverb from the Tao Te Ching, that “a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step,” teaches us to begin with where we are. We can work on goals such as cultivating compassion for ourselves and others, countering judgmentalism toward ourselves and others, taking the risk of opening up to others to allow their compassion for us (even if this means risking rejection), standing our ground with others who threaten our boundaries or attempt to impose their will and perspective on us, and learning to tolerate the inevitable disappointments and losses in life. This touches upon the paradox of being and becoming, which recognizes that personal change come easier when we accept ourselves for the way we are now.

Cognitive Behaviorism: An Abridged History – 2.0

February 2, 2016Cognitive Behaviorism, Paradoxes in Everyday Life, Subjectivity and Objectivitycognitive behaviorism, existential, logical empiricism, objectivity, paradox, rationality, subjectivity, third wave behaviorismRobert Daniel

For years, cognitive behaviorism has been the self-proclaimed leader in psychotherapy, citing numerous studies to back that claim. That approach has touted its superior effectiveness in treating a variety of mental disorders. Its list of “evidence-based” applications has grown so broad that you’d think it’d cure all that ails you. Like other movements, it has tended to overreach its utility by trying to be all things to all people. In the words of a folksy adage, “When your only tool is a hammer, everything starts looking like a nail.”

Putting Cognitive Behaviorism in Perspective

We can gain perspective, though, by placing cognitive behaviorism in its historical and cultural context. In doing so, we can better appreciate both its promises and its limitations in resolving particular problems of living. This exploration will allow cognitive behaviorism to assume its rightful place among other approaches to life’s adversities. We can then see this therapeutic model as but one set of tools in the tool chest. This perspective will then allow us to apply its strategies and techniques to the appropriate situations. Likewise, we can expect to find that other therapeutic approaches are more relevant for other circumstances.

The Broader Historical Context

Cognitive behaviorism is, first of all, a product of Western civilization. As such, it inherited a perspective that evolved out of the Renaissance and the later Industrial Revolution. This orientation ushered in a philosophical inquiry into how we know anything with any certainty. This laid the groundwork for logical empiricism as the basis of the scientific method. That particular ideology viewed the application of logic to observable data as the basic path to knowledge. Within psychology, the school of behaviorism embraced that philosophy to guide its research and practice. This is a rather abbreviated outline of a centuries-long process, and the following sections will flesh this out.

The Rise of the Scientific Perspective

With the Renaissance and the later Industrial Revolution, Western culture shifted from a faith-based to a science-based view of reality. In doing so, our civilization has exhibited a bias toward the scientific objectivity that has fostered unprecedented advances in science and technology over the past 500 years. This perspective questioned the assumptions of the older world view, including the belief in an omniscient and omnipotent Being running the show. It even called into question the reality of our own existence. In the 17^th Century, Rene Descartes proposed a logical proof of our existence, declaring, “cogito, ergo sum.” (“I think, therefore I am”). Later philosophical thought gave primacy to the objective perspective by viewing rationality as the arbiter of factual certainty.

Toward Logical Empiricism

Philosophical inquiry became focused on understanding the path to knowledge (i.e., epistemology, as it is known in philosophy). Thus, it is more of a philosophy of science, rather than a broader philosophy of life. Within this movement arose branches of rationalism, empiricism, and skepticism, all embracing objective perspectives on reality. Logical empiricism took this outlook on knowing to its natural conclusion. This school views knowledge as being accrued through applying principles of logic to shared sensory experience. Thus, private personal experiences are not to be trusted, as they cannot be validated by others. Well, so much for introspection! And metaphysical constructs? Logical empiricists considered these non-sensory (and perhaps nonsense?), and thus unworthy subjects for philosophical or scientific analysis.

The Emergence of Psychology as a Scientific Discipline

During the Industrial Age, psychology emerged from its philosophical roots to proclaim its legitimacy as a scientific pursuit. In 1879, Wilhelm Wundt established the first psychological laboratory, in Leipzig, Germany. He and his followers pursued the methodical study of human experience, including sensations, thoughts, feelings, and memories. Subsequent psychological research further developed an experimental approach to the pursuit of knowledge. This trend culminated with the American Psychological Association adopted the Scientist-Practitioner model in 1949. They thus formalized science as the basis of applied psychologists’ practice. This meant that scientific research was to provide the foundation for clinical psychologists providing psychotherapy and psychological assessment.

Experimental Research vs. Case Study

Thus, the methodology of experimental psychology came to overshadow the more subjective case study approach. In the process, the objectively-oriented psychologists viewed the insights attained from case studies as mere anecdotal evidence. At best, psychologists viewed these as a source of hypotheses to be tested in more formal experiments. In this way, objective data replaced clinical intuitions as the gold standard for psychological knowledge. Psychotherapy came to be viewed as an application of scientific knowledge, rather than a healing art. Psychologists devised controlled experimental designs to establish that a particular therapeutic approach meets the “evidence-based” standard for efficacy. This emphasis on objectivity has largely relegated the more subjective exploration of the complexities of the human condition to the arts and humanities.

The Rise of Behaviorism in Psychology

From within the broad discipline of psychology emerged the school of behaviorism, with its more stringent research standards. This branch found guidance through its strict adherence to the tenets of the logical empiricism. In particular, it viewed knowledge as accruing through applying principles of logic to shared sensory experience. According to this standard, the earlier introspective methods of Wundt and Tichener were dismissed as objectively unverifiable. That is, the researchers could record, but not validate, their subjects’ report of private experiences. (This is by definition, because if it could be verified, the experience would no longer be considered private).

The Black Box of Private Experience

The strict behaviorists proclaimed that data without external validation was neither reliable nor meaningful. They considered the mind as a “black box,” concealing its contents and providing no real explanations. The behaviorists considered only the subjects’ observable behaviors legitimate targets for investigation. This methodology excluded private experience (i.e., thoughts, feelings, sensations, memories, and associations) from study. Within this constraint, behavioral psychology adopted a cause-and-effect analysis of the relationship between the environment and the behavior. In learning theory, behaviorists view behaviors as conditioned responses to external stimulus situations and reinforcement histories. Note how all these factors can be witnessed directly and consensually validated.

Enter the Cognitive Behaviorists

The cognitive behaviorists, though, reintroduced one type of private experience, cognitions, as a legitimate object of inquiry. They challenged the behaviorists’ suspicions about the validity of private experience by assuming that their subjects were reporting the truth. The “truth,” though, had one major qualification. That is, cognitive behaviorists assumed the subjects’ were reporting their own truths. These were descriptions of their own private thoughts and beliefs, even if not objectively true. Thus, cognitive behaviorists could count their subjects’ self-report of experiences as publicly verifiable, even if their experiences weren’t.

Irrational Personal Truths

In fact, the cognitive behaviorist based their therapy on the discrepancy between their clients’ personal truths and objective reality. With public consensus defining this reality, beliefs contrary to this shared reality were considered irrational. Therapists adopting this approach proposed that their clients’ irrational beliefs were causing them emotional distress. Thus, cognitive behaviorists opened up the “black box” of the mind to rediscover the inner life that had been ignored or rejected as irrelevant. In doing so, they fudged on the strict empiricism of the radical behaviorists and the earlier logical empiricists. They still retained an objective bias by focusing on the issue of rationality in their clients’ beliefs, rather than paying comparable attention to the more subjective memories, emotions, sensations, or perceptions.

Objectivity over Subjectivity

Even with its acceptance of private experiences as a legitimate object of study, cognitive behaviorism remained true to logical empiricism’s vision of knowledge. That is, it viewed knowledge as being attained through applying logic to shared sensory experience. In assuming this approach, cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) was extending the challenge that the Age of Reason had posed to the Age of Faith from the broad cultural level down to the individual level. In this case, rather than challenging the dogmas of religion, as Copernicus and Galileo had done in displacing the earth from the center of the universe, cognitive behaviorists were analyzing and challenging the idiosyncratic belief systems of the various individuals seeking their aid and counsel.

Humans Viewed as “Naive Scientists”

An early pioneer in cognitive behaviorism, George Kelly, presented a view of individuals as “naive scientists” who develop and test the validity of their belief systems about their world. This tenet served as a foundation for the cognitive behavioral therapies later developed by Aaron Beck, Albert Ellis, and others. Counselors and therapists using this approach judged the validity of their clients’ beliefs by the same standards of logical empiricism that they used in their own scientific research.

Cognitive Behaviorism and Freudian Psychoanalysis

A contextual review of cognitive behaviorism would be incomplete without reference to Freudian psychoanalysis. This earlier model of psychotherapy had upset Victorian sensibilities by addressing human sexuality as central to the human condition. Behaviorism did not challenge Freudian theory for its emphasis on sexuality per se. Rather, it challenged its use of various metaphysical constructs (e.g., libido, the Oedipus complex, the death instinct, the unconscious). Behaviorists argued that these concepts were so removed from sensory experience that they could be neither proven nor refuted. Thus, behaviorism did not actually disprove Freudian psychodynamics. Rather. it moved to dismiss the case on procedural grounds. Namely, behaviorists argued that the intangible Freudian concepts lacked the observability required by logical empiricism. In this way, cognitive behaviorism was able to dismiss the animal nature in humans without “getting its hands dirty.”

The Problem of Emotional Distress

That still left the realm of the emotions to address. since clients were seeking therapy, not to correct their irrational beliefs, but rather to alleviate their emotional pain and suffering. While the Freudian psychodynamic model views distressing emotions as a manifestation of frustrated instinctual drives, cognitive behaviorism considers these feelings more as byproducts of irrational belief systems.

Beyond Cognitive Behaviorism

Behaviorism has since evolved beyond the pure cognitive behavioral model in what has been characterized as the “third wave” of behaviorism. These newer approaches have delved further into the “black box” of the mind. Marsha Linehan’s dialectical behavioral therapy (DBT), Stephen Hayes’ Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT), and Mindfulness-based Cognitive Therapy (MBCT) have all expanded their scope beyond the narrow focus on thoughts through the analytic lens of rationality.

An Eastern Influence

These behavioral schools have drawn upon Eastern influences in developing the practice of mindfulness as cornerstones of their approaches. DBT and ACT have also deviated from behaviorism’s logical empirical foundations by addressing values and emotions. For example, they have espoused a paradoxical juxtaposition of acceptance of the current situation and commitment to change. Both of these approaches seek to cultivate a tolerance for normal suffering by incorporating the Buddhist principles of the Four Noble Truths into their perspective and practice. This contrasts with CBT’s reliance upon logical analysis to temper, if not eliminate, the negative emotions associated with the irrational beliefs.

Venturing into Subjectivity

With ACT, the challenges to the clients’ dysfunctional outlooks on life are conveyed not just through the objective lens of logic, but also through the subjectivity of analogy and metaphor. With such significant departures from the philosophical underpinnings of behaviorism, this “third wave” of behaviorism actually appears to be more of a hybrid of behavioral and experiential approaches to psychology, rather than simply an evolved behaviorism.

The Further Modification of Behaviorism

Even with these deviations from behavioral orthodoxy, the cognitive behavioral establishment has not declared these “third wave” approaches heretical. Rather, traditional cognitive behaviorists have tolerated the reformed schools and even introduced mindfulness techniques into their own practice. Traditional CBT has tended to import the techniques without incorporating the underlying principles that have supported these practices through the centuries. Such modifications strike me as akin to morphing an elephant’s trunk onto a horse: there just doesn’t appear to be a smooth integration.

An Alternative Perspective: The Way of Paradox

Now, where am I going with this review? What’s my angle? You might note my domain name is roguepsychologist, and wonder what I am up to. And you would be quite right! By placing a school of thought within a cultural context, we recognize its relativity. It takes its place among various perspectives. We can then compare the perspectives, thus revealing their limitations as well as their strengths. Such is my strategy in challenging the position of cognitive behaviorism as the prevailing model of psychotherapy.

When Life’s Paradoxes Cause Distress

While CBT provides a valid approach to alleviating distress resulting from unrealistic expectations and other irrational beliefs, this approach does not appear relevant for reconciling oneself to the inherent paradoxes of the human condition. And I would not be exerting such energy in my challenge if I did not have an alternative perspective to set forth. And in doing so, I would pose the following questions: What if the structure of our reality were not logical and rational? What if it were paradoxical, instead? And if so, how might we engage in its structure, not in the most reasonable way, but in the most enriching manner?

Beyond the Familiar Ground of Cognitive Behaviorism

I grant that the “third wave” of behaviorism has blazed a trail into this frontier (from the behavioral perspective, that is), leaving behind the familiar path of logical empiricism. Yet while this is foreign territory to the behaviorists, it is homeland for others who are steeped in experiential and humanistic traditions, particularly existentialism. I must also acknowledge that I have been relatively unfamiliar with the intricacies of these “third wave” schools, such that I was going about reinventing the wheel according to my specifications, with their ideas perhaps having some influence in the background.

Approaching Paradox from an Experiential Perspective

The “third wave” of behaviorism has thus approached the integration of behavior and experience from a behavioral perspective. In contrast, I have ventured out from a more humanistic and existential outlook for my synthesis. The tracks are parallel and at times crossing, though coming from different directions.

In developing my ideas, I cannot identify all the works that have influenced my formulations. I have attempted to give credit where credit is due, yet the linkages are not always that clear. Some of them are no doubt locked away in my own “black box.” On this website, I have aimed not so much at introducing new material. (I’ve looked everywhere under the sun, to no avail.) Rather, I seek to integrate behavioral and experiential aspects of life. Furthermore, I attempt to integrate psychological and philosophical material as a coherent whole. Hopefully, I can do so in a compelling and engaging manner.

Philosophers Calvin and Hobbes

With that being said, I want to credit the 20^th/21^st Century philosophers Calvin and Hobbes, as interpreted by Bill Watterson. (They are not to be confused with John Calvin and Thomas Hobbes of earlier times). Through their fumbling meanderings, they often exemplify the human struggle with the various paradoxes of life. Similar to the DBT and ACT approaches, they grapple with the paradox of being and becoming. Here, the challenge is the simultaneous acceptance of the current situation and the commitment to change. Calvin and Hobbes also explore other paradoxical dualities, such as order and freedom, security and excitement, and individuality and belonging. You can find links to these works in my web posts – but you’ll have to look for them!

For Further Exploration, . . .

If these issues appeal to you, I’d refer you to my other posts on my website. These include my home page, About “A Rogue Psychologist’s Field Guide to the Universe”. Or you’ll find a somewhat more detailed account in Beyond Rationality and into the Realm of Paradox. I have two other posts, Living Rationally with Paradox and Muddling Down a Middle Path, which address these issues. Yet another post, Vicious Cycles Patterns in Relationships 2.0, integrates the behavioral and experiential components addressed in this article.

Our Social Roles – Which Are Yours?

December 28, 2014Interpersonal Roles, Paradoxes in Everyday Life, Vicious Cycle Patterns in Relationships"If it ain't broke - don't fix it", "The unexamined life is not worth living", assumptions, dualities, Games Alcoholics Play, paradox, Persecutor - Victim - Rescuer cycle, roles, Socractic, Steven Karpman, vicious cyclesRobert Daniel

How often do you stop to reflect on your place in the world and the social roles you play out on this stage? If you are like most, it’s not that often. You may follow the adage, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” This approach is in direct contrast to the Socratic dictum that “the unexamined life is not worth living” and his admonition to “know thyself.” Here, we find an example of contradictory advice, which I propose is a direct result of our living in a paradoxical world. As we discover in other writings on this site, we don’t need to be paralyzed by such situations. Instead, we can adopt a middle ground between the two opposing positions, in exploring not only how these social roles limit us, but also considering other available options.

Getting to Know Thyself

In exploring our usual styles of relating to others, it is important to remember that we are not the roles that we assume, even if we play them rather frequently or habitually. We may find that we alternate between various roles according to the circumstances in which we find ourselves. Still, we do “volunteer” for certain roles because they fulfill our particular wants and needs. Many of these roles evolve out of how we resolve various paradoxes of life for ourselves (e.g., order vs. freedom, belonging vs. individuality, security vs. excitement, being vs. becoming, and using vs. relating). It is quite unlikely that we have come to a deliberate choice out of our contemplating these paradoxes and the meaning of life. Rather, the resolution is usually implied in how we interact with others. And even if these roles were a product of conscious choice, we have likely practiced them sufficiently that they have become a matter of habit, with our no longer being aware of them. They then operate as implicit assumptions, acting behind the scenes to guide our interactions with others. As long as these assumptions go unstated, they are quite difficult to challenge. Only when we identify them, do we consider that there are other options. Tagging these “ways of being in the world” with labels gives us the focus to assess their usefulness and to consider other available options.

Social Roles – How to Define Them?

There is nothing magical or absolute about the labels and definitions for these social roles. It is more a matter of creating them, rather than discovering them. Just as we can cut a cake into different numbers of pieces of different shapes and sizes, so too can we construct the various roles from the array of attitudes, feelings, and behaviors that we experience and express. Even with this arbitrary quality, these labels provide useful “handles” for understanding ourselves. You will find that various therapists, counselors, life coaches, and self-anointed gurus differ widely in labeling and defining the common personality styles and roles. This is not haphazard. Rather, these categories are outgrowths of their perspectives on life. So, too, is it with my outlook. In particular, I make note of the differing styles we adopt and practice in wading through the “messiness” of living in a paradoxical universe. Furthermore, these roles do not occur in isolation – rather, they get expressed in our social relations. These habitual roles interact with others’ styles, often resulting in getting stuck in frustrating relationship patterns, which I have addressed as vicious cycles. Having labels and descriptions for these can help one escape from such ruts. While these labels can be a quite useful shorthand to describe common patterns, we should keep in mind that they are not things in and of themselves. Here, we want to keep in mind Alfred Korzybski’s adage, “Don’t confuse the map with the territory.”

Social Roles as Styles of Dealing with Life’s Paradoxes

In this approach, we will be defining our social roles in functional terms, according to the particular purpose toward which we are applying them. First, we define these roles according to varying tendencies for resolving life’s paradoxes: Do we seek out order and predictability, or do we reserve the freedom of keeping our options open? Do we prefer comfort and security, or do we pursue adventure and excitement? Do we live in the moment, appreciating things as they are, or do we focus on pursuing goals for improvement and fulfilling a purpose? Do we approach life and relationships in a practical sense of working together to achieve specific goals, or do we focus on relating to one another on a deeper emotional level? Do we collaborate openly with others by “laying one’s cards face up on the table,” or do we pursue our private agenda in “keeping our cards close to our vest”? Do we seek out a sense of belonging with others, or do we pursue our unique identity, “marching to the beat of a different drummer”? All of these questions tap into the paradoxes of life, for which there are no “one-size-fits-all” answers. Of course, these dualities are not forced choices between two extremes, but are two ends of a continuum, with the more adaptive approaches lying somewhere in the middle, as I discussed in my article, Muddling down a Middle Path: Wading through the Messiness of Life.

Getting Stuck in Vicious Cycle Roles

These paradoxes that shape our lives are no mere matter of philosophical debate. They get played out on the social stage on a daily basis. We find others to play out the scenes with roles that complement our own – though often not in a good way. Over time, these patterns become habitual, with little thought given to them, and even less consideration to what we can do differently. Thus, we get stuck in ruts which often bring out the worst in us, as I have discussed in my article, Vicious Cycle Patterns in Relationships 2.0.

Other posts involve exploring specific roles that have evolved out of my study of styles of resolving paradoxes and how these styles interact in vicious cycle patterns. Two such posts, Escaping the Victim Role and Caretaker Burnout and Compassion Fatigue, discuss specific unhealthy roles in vicious cycles and provide suggestions for breaking free from them. Future posts are in the works for transcending the Oppressor and the Rebel roles. Note that the goal of such projects is not to eliminate these roles, but to modify them to healthier versions. By offering adaptive solutions to problems and conflicts, the constructive versions allow us to venture beyond the vicious cycles and move on to other activities and social roles. The strategies and techniques specific to each social role supplement the more general tips given for escaping vicious cycle patterns, which were outlined in the Vicious Cycle article noted above.

Clusters of Related Social Roles

As I noted before, there is nothing absolute about these patterns, and thus we might look at clusters of patterns that function in much the same manner in vicious cycles. One such grouping, which I label the Oppressor cluster, encompasses the Critic, Perfectionist, Snoop, Bully, and Authoritarian roles. These represent variations on the Persecutor role identified by Steven Karpman, cited in the book, Games Alcoholics Play, by Claude Steiner. Another grouping, which I refer to as the Victim cluster, encompasses the Victim, Dependent, People Pleaser, and Martyr roles, which are versions of the Victim role in Karpman’s model. I also have identified the Rebel cluster as a variant of the Victim cluster, which encompasses the Individualist, Libertarian, Free Spirit, and Sneak social roles. I have adopted the Rescuer role in Karpman’s model as the foundation of another cluster, which also includes the Caretaker and Enabler roles. These clusters tend to complement one another in two-role and three-role vicious cycles, with Karpman’s Persecutor – Victim – Rescuer model serving as the prototype. (For a cultural and political application of this model, see my article, Vicious Cycle Roles on the Societal and Political Level.)

[whohit]the roles we assume – which ones do you play?[/whohit]

Beyond Rationality and Into the Realm of Paradox

August 6, 2013Paradoxes in Everyday Lifecognitive behaviorism, objectivity, paradox, subjectivityRobert Daniel

Cognitive behaviorism has generally been recognized as the current prevailing model being applied to life’s problems. It has achieved such dominance that many assume this perspective as the preferred approach for understanding human experience and behavior. Indeed, some are so deeply embedded in this worldview that they don’t even consider other possibilities. This website proposes an existential model that provides a more relevant perspective from which to address certain aspects of the human condition, particularly those related to the paradoxical aspects of life. In particular, it draws on the distinctions between objectivity and subjectivity and between problem and paradox.

The Rise of Objectivity in Western Culture

Ever since Descartes rested the proof of one’s existence on one’s ability to reason (i.e., “Cogito, ergo sum.”), Western culture has exhibited a bias toward the objective perspective. Indeed, reflective awareness, the ability to step back and reflect on our involvement with the world and the people around us, gives us the impression of a separate identity in a way that subjective immersion in the “here and now” does not present. In this way, the Western worldview has come to view objective experience as a true and accurate representation of the world out there, whereas it tends to view subjective experience as idiosyncratic perceptions, colored and perhaps distorted by the biases of the individual. Hence, we often speak of objective reality and subjective experience.

The Barren Landscape of Objectivity

While the rise of objectivity in Western culture has fostered unprecedented advances in science and technology over the past 500 years, Yet such progress has come at a high cost. In becoming increasingly embedded in civilization, we have fallen out of harmony with nature.– a modern version of expulsion from paradise for eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge. Perhaps this development is a recapitulation of the biblical creation story. While this may not represent an orthodox interpretation of the biblical creation story, you might say? If you’re looking for a conventional perspective, what are you doing at the Rogue Psychologist website?

The experience (or some would say illusion) of separateness fosters alienation. Our relationships with others have become more objectified, with a greater tendency to use one another, rather than relating to each other. This distinction was highlights by Martin Buber’s contrast between I-It and I-Thou relationships, respectively. In the reductionism that is an inherent aspect of the pursuit of objective or abstract knowledge, we have lost touch with our rich subjective experience. When we process our experiences, particularly in recalling the past and in anticipating the future, our mental activities often involve cognitions (i.e. thoughts and interpretations), more so than sensations. The pursuit of knowledge might be compared to searching for the bedrock of objective knowledge by scraping away the cover of dirt, including the very topsoil upon which terrestrial life depends. Is it any wonder that in this barren psychic landscape, alienated souls have forsaken a lifelong quest for meaning and settled for drug-induced trips whose durations are measured in hours, or even minutes? In their classic, “Is That All There Is?”, made famous by Peggy Lee, songwriters Jerry Leiber and Mike Stoller responded to the “feeling that something was missing” with the refrain, “If that’s all there is, my friends, then let’s keep dancing. Let’s break out the booze and have a ball, if that’s all there is.”

Psychology’s Pursuit of Objective Knowledge

Psychology has largely followed this reductionist path through its emphasis on the scientist-practitioner model, in an attempt to emulate the rigors of the natural sciences in order to attain cultural legitimacy. Controlled experiments are designed to demonstrate the cause-and-effect relationships between various abstract factors, yet case studies that retain the complexities of relations are often dismissed as mere anecdotal evidence. Thus, the exploration of the intricate complexities of the human condition has been largely relegated to the arts and humanities.

The goal of this website is not the overthrow of objectivity and rationality, but rather the elevation of subjectivity to a comparable status, side-by-side with objectivity, so that we can explore how the two modes complement one another, like yin and yang. I propose that the interplay of subjective and objective perspectives on reality can point to a transcendent reality. Indeed, I undertook such an exploration in my doctoral dissertation nearly 30 years ago, when I examined the interplay of subjective and objective experience in the development of healthy selfhood. I plan to utilize this website as a means of expanding this pursuit to developing a broader understanding of the human condition – granted, a rather ambitious, if not grandiose, endeavor. In this pursuit, I am proposing paradox as a key element of the human condition, and perhaps in the makeup of the universe (Did I mention grandiose?).

Solving Problems or Embracing Paradox

When we encounter problems, our natural inclination is to look for a solution, typically using logic and reason to analyze the situation. On a cultural level, Western civilization has made remarkable advances in science and technology in applying the scientific method and the philosophy of science known as logical empiricism. But what if the dilemma we face has no rational solution? Here, we enter the realm of paradox. I cite an excerpt from my doctoral dissertation:

“Despite (and perhaps because of) our scientific inventions and discoveries, humans confront paradoxes without adaptive solutions. We are capable of projecting ourselves into the past or future, yet remain tethered to the present. We contemplate the infinite, yet cannot escape our own mortality. We are determined by our histories, yet choose our future. We are our bodies, yet we have bodies. These are all features of the human condition for which science provides no solutions. . . . It is here, where science falls short, that art speaks and perhaps comforts.” (R. Daniel, 1986)

Many are reluctant to cross that threshold into the realm of paradox, not realizing that they already live in that realm on a daily basis. Some who seek definitive, authoritative solutions are put off when they discover that these chapters in the book of life do not have definitive answers in the back of the book. Others have felt muddled and confused when presented with paradoxical phenomena from advanced disciplines. Koans (e.g., “What is the sound of one hand clapping?”) are familiar paradoxes in the Zen Buddhist tradition. In the field of physics, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle and the observation that light acts like both a particle and a wave are two frequently cited paradoxes. While such examples demonstrate the depth and breadth of paradox in the fabric of reality as we know it, they have little apparent relevance for daily life.

Paradoxes of Nature, Paradoxes of Daily Life

While I am intrigued by such examples, particularly when they point to a confluence of science and spirituality (cf. The Tao of Physics by Fritjof Capra and The Quantum and the Lotus by Matthieu Ricard and Trinh Xuan Thuan), I prefer to focus on paradox as it manifests itself in daily life. One of the more familiar of these paradoxes is that “you can’t have your cake and eat it, too.” While this saying can be taken quite literally, it also points to the choice between living in the moment and building for the future, or between being and becoming. Various other paradoxes permeate the human experience of daily life, as will be explored on this site. Rather than sharing vignettes from my clinical practice to illustrate such paradoxes, I prefer to cite literary examples, such as those hidden in plain sight in the comic strips of the daily newspaper. These speak to the universality of such experiences, whereas clinical case studies might be construed as deviant, if not pathological, variations of the human condition. When possible, I will provide links to the particular comic strips that illustrate the inherent paradoxes of daily life. I trust that the authors will see these citations as attempts to illuminate the profound insights in works that are often passed over as amusing diversions.

Coming Attractions

Initially, I will be submitting articles and presentations that I have authored over the past 20 years or so. One of my early submissions was taken from my PowerPoint presentation, entitled “Living Rationally in a Paradoxical Universe: Maintaining Sanity in a Crazy World, Or Trying to Fit a Square Peg into a Round Hole?” I will follow this up with other PowerPoint presentations, some of my self-help articles, and my stories and parables. I will also commit some more of my current thinking to print, with this hopefully being an ever-evolving process. I also plan to share some of my own personal experiences that have helped to shape my worldview. I eventually plan to translate my doctoral dissertation into a more vernacular language and style. My perspective has involved over time, so I will likely do some revising and updating of these works. Yet I may also leave some of these works much as I first wrote them, inviting input from blogs, perhaps to make this website more of a living document and less of a static production. I plan to pose questions to stimulate further thought among my readership, rather than suggesting that I have the definitive last word. I invite readers to share similar themes and patterns from their own perspectives, as I expect there to be a certain resonance among various traditions. Hopefully, such a process can use multiple perspectives to develop a sort of depth perception. I only ask that you respect the integrity of the outlook presented on this website, rather than attempting to subsume this orientation under your own favorite theory or model. I am seeking to establish a dialectical process in order to develop greater understanding and meaning in life. This includes the Hegelian sense of dialectics, in which a new synthesis evolves from the interaction of thesis and antithesis. Note that I am using cognitive behaviorism as the conventional wisdom or thesis to which paradoxical existentialism provides a counterpoint or antithesis. (Hence, my claim to my role as a rogue psychologist.) It would be ingenuous for me to take this stance, unless I were willing to allow the same freedom of “loyal opposition” among my readers. Feedback from others can be helpful for uncovering implicit assumptions in my perspective, which I welcome (I think!). I just ask that you strive to keep your feedback constructive and that you keep open to considering your own particular assumptions and biases. I might suggest that you take a “Jeopardy” approach, in making your observation in the form of a question, which frequently does more to illuminate issues than does criticism, constructive or otherwise.

Playing with Paradox

Much of this exploration will be undertaken in a playful manner, as I find much of academic psychology to be rather dry and boring. (I will provide references for the various ideas expressed in this website, for those who want to pursue such lines of thinking anymore serious manner.) The exploration of paradox would be lacking without the use of humor – indeed, paradox is perhaps the prime ingredient for humor. Whereas reason and logic can be useful tools, they do not provide much guidance when we are looking at issues of meaning and purpose. I address this issue in a PowerPoint presentation, entitled, “Living Rationally in a Paradoxical Universe: Maintaining Sanity in a Crazy World, Or Trying to Fit a Square Peg into a Round Hole?” This provides much of the basic framework for my explorations of the paradoxical universe on this website. This will also lead into another favorite theme of mine, which I first addressed in a self-help article about 20 years ago, entitled “Vicious Cycle Patterns in Relationships: Tips on How To Stop Spinning Your Wheels.” I will also post several of my therapeutic stories, including “The Man with a Monkey on His Back,” about being our own worst critic, “The Eskimo Who Lost His Art and Soul,” on the importance of being true to ourselves rather than selling out, and my Uncle Lester’s story of “The Quicksand Beds of Carumba Flats,” with implications on how to deal with stress, whether our own or that of others. I value storytelling for imparting wisdom, and I paraphrase a Sufi saying, to the effect that “If you want to change a person’s mind, you give a lecture or a discourse, but if you want to touch a person’s heart, you tell a story.”

I had intended to initiate my website on my birthdate of July 20, or Il Venti Luglio in Italian, otherwise known as “Lunatic’s Feast Day,” but was not able to get everything together so quickly, as there was a gestation process with which to contend. I will still mark this day as the inception for this endeavor, as I find its spirit resonating with the following myth set in the Middle Ages:

Have you ever wondered how craziness has gotten associated with the moon? We will probably never know for sure, as both lunacy and lunar have their common root in the same Latin word. One compelling candidate for the association has been carried on in the Tuscan feast of Il Venti Lugio (The 20^th of July), otherwise known as the Lunatic’s Feast Day. This is an obscure Italian festival with its origins in the Tuscan hill towns during the Middle Ages. When the peasants observed a lunar eclipse during a severe drought and heat wave, mass hysteria broke out. They interpreted the copperish color of the partial eclipse of the moon, distorted by the shimmering heat waves of the evening air, as the moon catching on fire. Then, during the total eclipse phase, they assumed that it had become consumed. Many interpreted this development as a sign that the Apocalypse was near at hand. Relieved when the moon reappeared intact a couple of hours later, a spontaneous celebration broke out for the rest of the night. The next day a cool, soaking rain began that lasted for two whole weeks, thus breaking the drought. This served as the basis of the Church feast of Il Venti Lugio each July 20^th, in which lunacy was celebrated as a prelude to regeneration and renewal. By the 17^th Century the celebration had taken on a raucous pagan character, resulting in the Church officials denouncing the event and persecuting its participants during what later became known as the Tuscan Inquisition. Even though eight women were tried and drowned as sorceresses, secret societies maintained the tradition into the 20^th century. Then, on this date in 1969, Neal Armstrong took “one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind,” with the first ever moonwalk. This heralded the revival of the festival, which now celebrates the mysterious synchronicities in nature and human experience.

Some have questioned the veracity of this account, but then, there are always those who contend that the lunar landing was an elaborate hoax. Besides, I recall Hugh Livingstone, the Eskimo sculptor in my story, The Eskimo Who Lost his Art and Soul, telling me, “Don’t confuse truth with fact.” And if anyone you tell about this feast day questions its authenticity, you can tell them that you know it’s true because you saw it on the internet.

[whohit]beyond rationality and into the realm of paradox[/whohit]

Our Quest for Meaning and Security

Beliefs and Values

Diversity Breeds Insecurity

Logic and Our Search for Clear-cut Answers

The Initial Assumptions – Therein Lies the Rub

Agreeing on the Facts

How Logic Speaks to Values – Or Not

Values in Conflict – Incidental and Paradoxical

The Issue of Paradox

An Example of a Paradoxical Duality of Values

Political Implications of This Paradox

Links to Other Examples

Polarization: The Politics of Extremes

Paradox: Where Logic Falls Short

Paradox: A Challenge to Certainty

Finding Balance between the Paradoxical Values

Balancing Logic and Paradox

In Praise of Ambiguity and Uncertainty

The Threat to our Sense of Security

The True Believer

The Illusion of Absolute Certainty

Compartmentalization

A Sea of Uncertainty

Finding External Sources of Certainty

Sanctity Backed by Religious Doctrine

Loyalty to Group

Allegiance to the Leader

Dogma, Cult, and Authoritarian Leader

The Broader Perspective on Polarization

Where We Stand Today

A Statement of Disclosure

Behind the Scenes – Conspiracy?

Where to from Here?

Share this:

Like this:

Narcissists and Self-Esteem

Narcissism and the Paradox of Individuality and Belonging

Narcissism and Relating to Others

The Vicious Cycle Patterns Involving Narcissists

The Narcissist Role in Relation to Its Adversaries

The Narcissist Role in Relation to Its Supporters

Predisposing Vulnerabilities for Vicious Cycle Interactions

The Pull of the Critic Role

The Pull of the Entourage Roles

Resisting the Force Field of Narcissists

Escaping the Particular Dysfunctional Roles

Know Thyself

Share this:

Like this:

Putting Cognitive Behaviorism in Perspective

The Broader Historical Context

The Rise of the Scientific Perspective

Toward Logical Empiricism

The Emergence of Psychology as a Scientific Discipline

Experimental Research vs. Case Study

The Rise of Behaviorism in Psychology

The Black Box of Private Experience

Enter the Cognitive Behaviorists

Irrational Personal Truths

Objectivity over Subjectivity

Humans Viewed as “Naive Scientists”

Cognitive Behaviorism and Freudian Psychoanalysis

The Problem of Emotional Distress

Beyond Cognitive Behaviorism

An Eastern Influence

Venturing into Subjectivity

The Further Modification of Behaviorism

An Alternative Perspective: The Way of Paradox

When Life’s Paradoxes Cause Distress

Beyond the Familiar Ground of Cognitive Behaviorism

Approaching Paradox from an Experiential Perspective

Philosophers Calvin and Hobbes

For Further Exploration, . . .

Share this:

Like this:

Getting to Know Thyself

Social Roles – How to Define Them?

Social Roles as Styles of Dealing with Life’s Paradoxes

Getting Stuck in Vicious Cycle Roles

Clusters of Related Social Roles